2
$\begingroup$

Let $Ω_p$ denote the set of the real parts of the poles of the Igusa zeta function of a polynomial $f∈\mathbb{Z}[X_1,…,X_m]$ (assume $f(0)=0$ so that $\Omega_p\ne \emptyset$) at the prime p. From Denef's formula for the motivic zeta function, we know that if $\{(N_i,\nu_i)\}_{i\in I}$ are the numerical data of a log resolution $h$ of the ideal $(f)$ over $\mathbb{Q}$, then for any "good" prime $p$ with respect to $h$ (in the sense of Denef) one has

$$ \Omega_p\subseteq \Omega:=\Big\{ -\frac{\nu_i}{N_i} \,:\,i\in I\Big\} $$

and the maxima of the two sets agree (and it is independent of $h$).

However, $\Omega_p$ is in general much smaller than $\Omega$, because of the many cancellations that take place in Denef's formula.

I was wondering whether these cancellations are actually uniform in $p$ (for $p$ good with respect to $h$), or, in other words, whether $\Omega_p$ is independent of $p$ for $p$ big enough. If it is the case, do this cancellation have a geometric interpretation at the level of the motivic zeta function?

Thank you.

$\endgroup$
0
$\begingroup$

The answer is negative. One can pick for example $f(X)=X(X^2+1)^2$. Igusa's formula from "An Introduction to the Theory of Local Zeta Functions" (p.123) tells us that $\Omega_p=\{1\}$ for $p\equiv 3 \mod 4$, but $\Omega_p=\{1,1/2\}$ for $p\equiv 1 \mod 4$.

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.